Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Well, duh (1996)

lrb.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 86 posts

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#31

Post by i_am_proteus »

pasabagi wrote: post #25

Very interesting review. I read infinite jest once as a teenager, and once a couple of years ago - and yeah, on second reading, I could see it doesn't really deserve its hype. The one weirdness of the review is kind of related to the main weirdness of Infinite Jest - why on earth is it related to Pynchon? I never really understood the similarity. Sure, they're both digressive writers - but so is everyone and their do…

For starters: Hal Incandenza's character development, or rather character devolvement, is reminiscent of Slothrop in Gravity's Rainbow.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#33

Post by pokler »

locusofself wrote: post #2

I had a ton of fun reading Infinite Jest, it took me two months of reading daily but after a while I couldn't wait to get home from work to read it (I didn't have a kid yet mind you). There are many things about it that are dissatisfying, frustrating even maddening. But there are so many points of brilliance it makes the whole thing worth it. The ambitiousness, audacity and shortcomings are part of it. I felt similar…

What 50 page section? Are you referring to the Eschaton game? If so, its not in the middle, nor is it 50 pages.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#34

Post by lonelappde »

pasabagi wrote: post #25

Very interesting review. I read infinite jest once as a teenager, and once a couple of years ago - and yeah, on second reading, I could see it doesn't really deserve its hype. The one weirdness of the review is kind of related to the main weirdness of Infinite Jest - why on earth is it related to Pynchon? I never really understood the similarity. Sure, they're both digressive writers - but so is everyone and their do…

It's not that great a book because it's deeply relevant to the time is was written and isn't generically timeless?

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#35

Post by scubbo »

throwlaplace wrote: post #24

here's a hack for reading infinite jest: use two bookmarks - one in the main story and one in the endnotes. here's another hack that is tougher: read it in less than a week. you simply cannot appreciate the book if you do not have all of the different plots and characters fresh in your head (BTW I make the same recommendation for all long classics eg war and peace). about the merit of the book: it is one of the few b…

I shudder to imagine the experience of reading Infinite Jest in physical form. Having an ereader that could jump back-and-forth between the main text and the endnotes was invaluable.

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#36

Post by ppod »

Not a very convincing criticism in my opinion. I liked the plot, but even if you don't like the plot or themes, I think the ideas, the sentences, the verbal invention and playfulness are the best things about the book. But, theme-wise, it's worth remembering that this basically pre-dates the modern internet:

>“The moment he recognized what exactly was on one cartridge he had a strong anxious feeling that there was something more entertaining on another cartridge and that he was potentially missing it. He realized that he would have plenty of time to enjoy all the cartridges, and realized intellectually that the feeling of deprived panic over missing something made no sense.”

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#37

Post by turingbike »

LZ_Khan wrote: post #22

"And herein is Infinite Jest’s (the book’s) major theme: the United States has become a culture addicted to entertainment, and like all addicts we pursue that entertainment to our detriment." It seems like the reviewer dislikes the book because he disagrees with this notion, citing our attachment to entertainment is more of a choice than an addiction. I however find this very profound and will be finishing the book t…

I think you will also like this quote/thought then:

> The theory is this: Infinite Jest is Wallace's attempt to both manifest and dramatize a revolutionary fiction style that he called for in his essay "E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction." The style is one in which a new sincerity will overturn the ironic detachment that hollowed out contemporary fiction towards the end of the 20th century. Wallace was trying to write an antidote to the cynicism that had pervaded and saddened so much of American culture in his lifetime. He was trying to create an entertainment that would get us talking again.

- http://fictionadvocate.com/2012/09/19/the-infinite-jest-live...

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#39

Post by quakingaspen »

stupidcar wrote: post #13
Invictus0 wrote: post #11

A real book "not worth the paper it's written on" simply falls out of print and is not reviewed; it does not generate twenty more pages of overpretentious literary diatribe decades later. Readers are advised to skip this article.

The article is a contemporary review.

It's not a contemporary review. It's from "Vol. 18 No. 14 · 18 July 1996" of the London Review of Books, so it came out contemporaneously with Infinite Jest

Re: Well, duh (1996)

#40

Post by ydb »

People love to hate David Foster Wallace. The irony is palpable when reading critics of his writing; they at times perfectly channel Wallace in their very critique of him. Heck, I was accosted (well, maybe the recipient of a snide remark) on the subway in Boston while I was reading a DFW novel on my commute. The person said that only coddled, white suburban men read his work -- when I am none of those things and sitting right on front of the person. I immediately forgave the cynic, though, once I caught a peek of their Boston University sweater hidden inside the crevasse of a parka's open zipper. :)

David Foster Wallace is the embodiment of a particular 20th and 21st century zeitgeist, and one that if you read between the lines, predicts all the ailments we will be facing in the decades ahead.

Post reply on HN